linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] media: i2c: vd55g1: Fix RATE macros not being expressed in bps

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aEpykCRKpJ9pA9sN@kekkonen.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 06:24:16 +0000
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Benjamin Mugnier <benjamin.mugnier@...s.st.com>
Cc: Sylvain Petinot <sylvain.petinot@...s.st.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] media: i2c: vd55g1: Fix RATE macros not being
 expressed in bps

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:31:09AM +0200, Benjamin Mugnier wrote:
> On 6/10/25 11:01, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 03:46:21PM +0200, Benjamin Mugnier wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Mugnier <benjamin.mugnier@...s.st.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/media/i2c/vd55g1.c | 4 ++--
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/vd55g1.c b/drivers/media/i2c/vd55g1.c
> >> index 25e2fc88a0367bf6a28bb22d209323ace99299f2..78dd22d9cab03edf4ff3e5a301f8d045e930c997 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/vd55g1.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/vd55g1.c
> >> @@ -129,8 +129,8 @@
> >>  #define VD55G1_FWPATCH_REVISION_MINOR			9
> >>  #define VD55G1_XCLK_FREQ_MIN				(6 * HZ_PER_MHZ)
> >>  #define VD55G1_XCLK_FREQ_MAX				(27 * HZ_PER_MHZ)
> >> -#define VD55G1_MIPI_RATE_MIN				(250 * HZ_PER_MHZ)
> >> -#define VD55G1_MIPI_RATE_MAX				(1200 * HZ_PER_MHZ)
> >> +#define VD55G1_MIPI_RATE_MIN				(250 * MEGA)
> >> +#define VD55G1_MIPI_RATE_MAX				(1200 * MEGA)
> > 
> > As the meaning of Hz is just /s, I don't think the use of HZ_PER_MHZ was
> > wrong in any way above.
> > 
> 
> Should I just drop this patch then ?

Up to you.

-- 
Sakari Ailus